4 ms·

I think you'll find nothing I said contradicts that statement.

xcv123 3y ago
You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    You wrote > there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose Well, there are studies showing that there is something wrong with consuming sucralose. I posted a link to such a study. That contradicts your statement.
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      You actually posted a link to a news article about a study, not a link to a study. And no, it doesn't contradict my statement that there's nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. It by itself is a piece of evidence, and doesn't by itself override decades of evidence.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        The article contains direct links to studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.848392/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.84839... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 This obviously logically contradicts your statement. Your sophistry is incredible. Let's see how you bullshit your way out of this one.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        There's no sophistry here. I simply find the FDA's GRAS finding, and the EU SCF's findings, to be much more convincing than a handful of restricted studies. You, clearly, do not feel the same, but given that you feel that my position on this is "sophistry" and "bullshit", it is obvious that we are incapable of having an actual discussion on it.
        xcv123 3y ago
        This is simple logic. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction" "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another." You wrote that there is no problem with sucralose. I showed studies indicating a problem with sucralose. That is a contradiction. Then you gaslight us saying there is no contradiction. Sophistry and gaslighting. This is basic english and logic.
        Blackthorn 3y ago

You have a short memory. Not long ago you wrote the following > I know I won't change anyone's already set opinions here, but for anyone reading this and not sure what is being discussed: there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. Then I posted a link to a study showing Sucralose is toxic.

Blackthorn 3y ago
Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.
- xcv123 3y ago
  You wrote > there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose Well, there are studies showing that there is something wrong with consuming sucralose. I posted a link to such a study. That contradicts your statement.
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    You actually posted a link to a news article about a study, not a link to a study. And no, it doesn't contradict my statement that there's nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. It by itself is a piece of evidence, and doesn't by itself override decades of evidence.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      The article contains direct links to studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.848392/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.84839... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 This obviously logically contradicts your statement. Your sophistry is incredible. Let's see how you bullshit your way out of this one.
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        There's no sophistry here. I simply find the FDA's GRAS finding, and the EU SCF's findings, to be much more convincing than a handful of restricted studies. You, clearly, do not feel the same, but given that you feel that my position on this is "sophistry" and "bullshit", it is obvious that we are incapable of having an actual discussion on it.
        xcv123 3y ago
        This is simple logic. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction" "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another." You wrote that there is no problem with sucralose. I showed studies indicating a problem with sucralose. That is a contradiction. Then you gaslight us saying there is no contradiction. Sophistry and gaslighting. This is basic english and logic.
        Blackthorn 3y ago